Question: "Why do my history teachers suggest that Bush will bring back the draft? What's the possibility that that will actually happen? And wasn't it the democrats who started the draft first?" -- the_sacrificer

Answer: Let me answer that question by posting part of a debate I had back in October of 2004, with Jeff Seemann, who was running for the U.S. House of Representatives in Ohio:

Moderator: Both candidates have stated emphatically that they will not attempt to reinstate the draft, but with the war in Iraq and Afghanistan taking its toll on our troops, how can we expect to engage in what President Bush has called a "long" war, without some form of mandatory military service?

John Hawkins: There isn't going to be a draft and anyone who tells you otherwise is either ignorant or dishonest. I don't know of any group that wants a draft except some anti-war Democrats who want to use it to turn people against the military and the war.

The American people are overwhelmingly against a draft. Politicians are going to be opposed to a draft because it's political poison. People who support the war on terrorism are going to be opposed to it because it would dramatically undercut support for the war. Generals don't want to spend the money to train a bunch of people who didn't want to enlist in the first place and who intend to leave as soon as possible. The soldiers in the field don't want to fight beside of draftees who don't want to be there. The House voted on a Democrat sponsored draft bill earlier this month just to quash this whole rumor. The final number was 402-2 against. So, in conclusion, anyone who tells you there's going to be a draft is either ignorant or trying to deceive you.

Jeff Seemann: I think you can expect there to be some form of mandatory military service if President Bush is re-elected. Four years ago he ran saying that he would not "nation build." Now the cost of invading Iraq in terms of blood and treasure will necessitate a mandatory draft where our sons and daughters will be forced to risk their lives if the President is re-elected.

If we elected John Kerry there will be no need for a draft. He has a plan to remove our troops from Iraq. An actual plan. Earlier today, Germany said that if the situation would change in Iraq they would consider helping.

A lot of people like to say, "Who is Germany or France to tell us the right course of action in Iraq or our election?" In this case, they are a country willing to help relieve us of the personal and financial burdens we took on by invading Iraq. They may not be Micronesia or Eritrea, but their financial and human resources will ensure we don't have to have a draft and begin to share the financial responsibilities our invasion has cost us.

You see, President Bush also likes to criticize Senator Kerry by saying, "How do you expect countries to join the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place? That isn't leadership that builds or maintains a successful coalition."

It looks like our allies across the globe appear willing to follow our lead, but it looks like they won't follow President Bush's. You want to avoid a draft, elect Senator John Kerry. The simple fact is this.....our military is already overstretched. This leaves two choices - less war, or a military draft. Which do you think George Bush will choose?

John Hawkins: Really? So the House which voted 402-2 is suddenly going to reverse itself completely if Bush is elected again? You knew that wasn't true the moment you wrote it down.

Jeff Seemann: I do not have a crystal ball, but I can certainly tell you that a 402-2 vote is MUCH more likely before an election. Let's see what Republicans vote on when they're not in fear of losing their jobs in a month.

John Hawkins: You don't need a crystal ball to know there isn't going to be a draft. Almost the only people even advocating a draft are anti-war Democrats like Chuck Schumer. To even sit there and tell people there might be a draft when you know, 100% for a fact that it isn't going to happen proves you're too dishonest to represent a district in Congress.

Jeff Seemann: Less war, or a military draft. I choose less war.

Moderator: Any further thoughts?

Jeff Seemann: I'm fine with my comments as they stand.

John Hawkins: You chose to make things up to try to scare a bunch of college kids who don't know any better. Nobody supports a draft except a bunch of anti-war Democrats and I find it to be totally irresponsible for someone who is running for Congress to claim that there's going to be a draft when he knows the Bush administration and the military are adamantly opposed to it and there is almost no Republican support for it. That's the sort of thing I expect to hear on crackpot conspiracy websites, not coming from someone who wants to represent the American people in Congress.

Everything I said then is still true, especially this: "There isn't going to be a draft and anyone who tells you otherwise is either ignorant or dishonest."

Oh, and Seemann? He lost the election...

Question: "My question deals with personal liberties. Last week my neighbor decided to burn his garage down at 4am. I went outside to hose down my house to prevent heat damage. My house is far enough to not be in any immediate danger, but would have received heat damage to siding and paint. I was almost arrested for not leaving my property!! I wasn't interfering with any efforts of the police or fire dept, or endangering anybody even in the instance they were to need to reach me for my safety or any other reason. I was only protecting my personal property. I did receive some damage, but was able to prevent most of the damage I would have incurred by spraying my house before my police episode. So my question is if we don't have the right to be protected by police or a right to have my property protected, then shouldn't I have the right to protect myself and my property. Then a step further, if I am responsible for myself (like we all should be) shouldn't I be able to make my own decision concerning my health if they don't endanger anybody else, ie: wearing seatbelts mandatory, motorcycle helmets are optional, and grandma can drink herself dead, but can't smoke a joint to relieve arthritis pain or cancer treatments. Just want your thoughts on personal freedoms, laws meant to protect us from ourselves, and our responsibility to live free and practice freedom in our own lives despite oppressive laws." -- Zac Jones

Answer: In essence, you're asking how far should society go to protect people from themselves and there's not necessarily an easy answer to that question.

Now some people, a lot of Libertarians in particular, would say: "People should have the right to do anything they want to as long as they're not hurting anybody else. So if somebody wants to ride without a helmet and increase the risk that they're going to crack their skull open, that's their prerogative. If they want to spend their days and nights smoking crack, it's nobody's business but their own."

However, when I hear that line of reasoning, I think back to something Ann Coulter wrote in her book: "How To Talk To A Liberal (If You Must)":

"The quintessential Libertarian argument for drug legalization is that people should be allowed to do what they want with their own bodies even if it ruins their lives. But that's not true. Back on earth, we live in a country that will not allow people to live with their own stupid decisions. Ann has to pay for their stupid decisions."

That's true. You smear your head all over the road and if you don't have medical insurance, then your expenses are spread out on everyone else's bills. If you become a crackhead and you can't afford it, you may go out and rob apartments to support your habit. Let's say you badly burn yourself spraying down your own house after a neighbor's garage catches on fire: in these days and times who's to say you won't sue the police and fire departments for 10 million dollars for not forcing you away from the fire?

In addition to that, you can never forget that important generic argument: "Is it good for our society as a whole to waste large numbers of potentially productive citizens by letting them do dumb things that are guaranteed to get a statistically significant number of them killed needlessly?"

Put another way, if having seatbelt laws saves a hundred thousand lives a year and only produces an extremely mild level of inconvenience, aren't we better off as a society to have the seatbelt law? Some of us, myself included, would say, "yes," other people would say, "no," and it's hard to definitively say who's right and who's wrong because there's not one overriding principle that always applies to every situation.

So, what you're asking is a tough question and you almost have to examine it issue by issue to make a good decision.

"The Mike Barone analysis is this: that why bloggers and the internet have helped Republicans and hurt Democrats, because the conservative bloggers have taken on, very effectively, the mainstream media, which is mostly liberal. And the liberal bloggers, they take on Democrats as not being liberal enough, and are driving them to the left. So on both counts, it helps Republicans." -- Fred Barnes

When you click on these links, it helps make sure my advertisers get their money's worth, which means that they're more likely to advertise on RWN again, which helps me pay the bills. Seriously, I'd appreciate it if you could click on even one or two of these links...

Conservatives: Please Take A Short Survey
Freedom Stone Political Shirts
How America Got It Right
The U.S. March to Military and Political Supremacy
Last Best Chance: The Movie
Matt Furey Combat Conditioning
Rightalk Conservative Radio
Simcountry
Thank You Tony Blair
Conservative Grapevine: The Blog For People Who ARE NOT Hillary Clinton. Are you NOT Hillary Clinton?
Dreamhost Web Hosting
JackLewis
Realm Dekor
Right Wing Stuff
VitaminUSA
Young Nationalist

Question: "My question is, when will conservatives counter this barrage of left-wing propaganda with more informative, conservative sites? Conservatives need to build consensus.

It seems that Conservatives need a bit of adrenalin, and that we should start countering the "vociferous" minority, lest they run all over us once again!" -- Althor

Answer: As far as conservative websites go, there are plenty of them from National Review to Michelle Malkin to Lucianne on and on and on.

On these rallies? What has the left accomplished with them? They all get together, make their giant puppet heads, put on their t-shirts comparing Bush to Hitler, and then they grab their "Free Mumia" signs and they have a nice little pep rally. Nobody cares. The press may report on it, but the general reaction seems to be, "Look at all the jerks they managed to get together in one place."

Nobody's mind is being changed by a bunch of clowns standing around in the street carrying ridiculous signs and as often as not if there's any big coverage of the protest at all, it's either because of violence or outrageous comments that end up hurting the cause all the protestors hit the street to support.

Those huge protests aren't worth the time and energy expended on them.

Question: "How long will it take for the Palestinians to self-destruct once the Israelis leave Gaza?" -- Bill_Berditzman

Answer: By your question, I take it that you think they haven't already achieved self-destruction. =) Personally, I think they've long since passed that point.

They have a "death cult" culture, a non-functional government, a non-functional economy, terrorist groups being allowed to do almost whatever they please, and schools that are in many cases just suicide bomber brainwashing schools.

In my opinion, the Israelis should keep following Sharon's plan which is to grab as much land as they practically can, build a wall cutting themselves off from the Palestinians, bring all their people behind that wall, engage in massive retaliation for every attack, and then just let the Palestinians stew in their own misery until they've had enough and decide to put their own house in order.

How long will that take? It could be a decade, it could be two -- who knows -- maybe it'll be never. But, until the Palestinians have a government that outlaws terrorist groups, has a monopoly on force, and is willing to give up the right of return, it's a waste of time to even sit down at the table with them and try to negotiate a permanent settlement.

Question: "Is it appropriate for Senators to ask judicial nominees their views on specific legal issues and/or is it proper for nominees to answer such questions?

I've gone round and round with XRLQ on this one, and would like to see your take, John." -- Spoons

Answer: Traditionally, Senators haven't asked about specific legal issues, they've simply focused on whether the nominee was qualified or not and left it at that. Quite frankly, we'd be better off it were still that way. These ugly, mud slinging contests over judges, that are really about ideology, aren't doing anyone any good.

That being said, since we have out-of-control, nearly uncheckable, judges with lifetime appointments issuing imperial decrees from the bench and calling it constitutional law, it's no big surprise that things have descended to this level.

So, would we be better off if the Senate was narrowly focused on qualifications? Yes, but that's not how it's working in the real world and we're just going to have to deal with the fall-out.

Question: "Given that the Right keeps gaining strength in the House, Senate and of course has the White House and now with a Supreme Court vacancy probably being filled by a strong conservative, do you feel we are heading to a one party system?" -- libliever

Answer: Although everything is tilting towards the GOP right now, the Democrats have actually been much more dominant at times than the GOP is today. Consider 1936 for example, when FDR beat the Republican candidate (Landon) 523-8 in electoral votes and the Democrats had 69 Senate seats and 322 seats in the House of Representatives.

Moreover, even if the GOP were to increase its dominance by winning again in 2008, getting to the point where we have 6 originalist justices on the Supreme Court, 60 GOP Senators and continued firm control of the House, the Democratic Party wouldn't just fade away.

In fact, and I know you're not going to want to hear this, but it would be good for the Democratic Party. That may seem counterintuitive, but the Democratic Party is in a rut and they need to be hammered right in the ground at the ballot box if they're going to finally realize it.

Were the Democrats to distance themselves from the flaming liberalism and knee jerk oppositionalism they're known for today and move back to more of a JFK-like posture, they could still do very well. On a gut level, I think a lot of Democrats realize that, but they just aren't motivated enough yet to deal with Ted Kennedy, MoveOn, Michael Moore, and the other people and groups that are slowly killing the Democratic Party with their embarrassing behavior and radical views.

But, even if the Democratic Party went into a spiral and never recovered, either a new party would spring up to take their place or the GOP would split into two factions. With the huge ideological split in this country, there just isn't a way for one Party to pitch a tent wide enough to suit everyone. So, what the parties stand for may change over time, but there will always be at least two parties...

Today is Q&A Friday #19 at RWN.

So, if there's a subject you've been wanting me to tackle or an issue you want to hear my opinion on, just ask your question in the comments section. Your question can be about politics, ideology, history, blogging, RWN, from a liberal, conservative, or libertarian perspective; heck, it can even be about movies, music, literature, or TV. Then, I'll select some of the more interesting questions and answer them.

So ask away!

Oh, yeah the Feds really have a handle on airport security.

You're waiting in line forever, they're actually checking grandpa's shoes, and the screeners are feeling up women's breasts to make sure they're not carrying weapons. Meanwhile, they're hiring a guy who calls himself "The Arabic Assassin" to handle the baggage:

"When Bassam Khalaf raps, he's the Arabic Assassin. His unreleased CD, "Terror Alert," includes rhymes about flying a plane into a building and descriptions of himself as a "crazy, suicidal Arabic ... equipped with bombs."

Until last week, Khalaf also worked as a baggage screener at George Bush Intercontinental Airport.

"I've been screening your bags for the past six months, and you don't even know it," said Khalaf, who also said Thursday that he is not really a terrorist and that his rhymes are exaggerations meant to gain publicity.

...An Internet search of Khalaf's name brings up Web sites that feature his obscene, violent and misogynistic raps that threaten to fly a plane into a building on Sept. 11, 2005.

Khalaf, 21, was hired on Jan. 16 and fired July 7, according to a TSA termination letter that cited his "authorship of songs which applaud the efforts of the terrorists on September 11th, encourage and warn of future acts of terrorism by you, discuss at length and in grave and alarming detail various criminal acts you intend to commit, state your belief that the U.S. government should be overthrown, and finally warn that others will die on September 11, 2005."

Khalaf, who was born in Houston and is of Palestinian descent, said working as a baggage screener was the best paying job he's ever had. He said he hoped to use any extra money he earned to produce his CD."

So we have a guy writing rap songs that "warn of future acts of terrorism" he's going to commit while he's working at George Bush Intercontinental Airport.

What do you even say to that? Maybe...

"Unless you've hired an actual member of Al-Qaeda to work on the planes, it can't get any worse?"

Was Valerie Plame a covert agent when her name originally came out? I think this should settle the whole debate once and for all:

"Wolf Blitzer: But the other argument that's been made against you is that you've sought to capitalize on this extravaganza, having that photo shoot with your wife, who was a clandestine officer of the CIA, and that you've tried to enrich yourself writing this book and all of that.

What do you make of those accusations, which are serious accusations, as you know, that have been leveled against you.

Joe Wilson: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity."

Advantage Rove!

*** Update #1 ***: As if that wasn't enough, here's another nail in the coffin for the whole "covert agent" claim:

"The federal code says the agent must have operated outside the United States within the previous five years. But Plame gave up her role as a covert agent nine years before the Rove interview, according to New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof.

Kristof said the CIA brought Plame back to Washington in 1994 because the agency suspected her undercover security had been compromised by turncoat spy Aldrich Ames."

That clinches it. Even if Rove would have held a press conference to tell the whole world Valerie Plame's name, there would have been nothing legally or ethically wrong with it because Plame wasn't a covert agent.

That means unless Rove did something illegal and dumb, like commit perjury or obstruct justice, he's completely in the clear. So at this point, there's nothing much left to do but wait until Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation is finished....

*** Update #2 ***: Here's a breaking story from the New York Times that I'm going to translate for you, because the NYT has written it in a very confusing way. Basically what they're saying is:

"Karl Rove has told investigators that he learned Valerie Plame's name from Robert Novak. Novak called Rove, afer he had already talked with another White House official and after hearing Mr. Novak's account, Mr. Rove told Novak: "I heard that, too."

Incidentally, that seems to gibe fairly well with the account Robert Novak gave in a follow-up to the column that outed Plame:

"During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger. When I called another official for confirmation, he said: "Oh, you know about it." The published report that somebody in the White House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found me as a willing pawn is simply untrue."

Rove is apparently the "Oh, you know about it guy".

*** Update #3 ***: As if that wasn't enough -- from the Washington Times:

"A former CIA covert agent who supervised Mrs. Plame early in her career yesterday took issue with her identification as an "undercover agent," saying that she worked for more than five years at the agency's headquarters in Langley and that most of her neighbors and friends knew that she was a CIA employee.

"She made no bones about the fact that she was an agency employee and her husband was a diplomat," Fred Rustmann, a covert agent from 1966 to 1990, told The Washington Times.

"Her neighbors knew this, her friends knew this, his friends knew this.”

As a general rule, I don't like to tear into other bloggers -- uh, scratch that -- I don't like to tear into other conservative bloggers. After all, there are already hordes of liberal bloggers out there and that's their shtick. But when I read something as bigoted, offensive, and just plain ignorant as this post at the Right Wing Howler, I feel compelled to step up and say something. This is just ridiculous:

"Some English youths must not have liked what happened on 7-7. Yesterday they killed a Muslim man in Nottingham.

Oh, well.

...The sheetheads want it to be called an "Islamophobic" killing.

...this will be nothing more than another excuse for MOOS-lims to stay at home, strike, protest, kill more people---whatever.

It's time to play "cowboys and muslims" for real and end this crap."

So not only is this cretin basically taking a "Muslims, terrorists, what's the difference" sort of attitude, he's actually shrugging off the murder of an innocent man and goes on to advocating violence against "sheetheads:" "It's time to play "cowboys and muslims."

That sort of thinking is repellant to any decent person and it's particularly insulting to loyal American Muslims and our Muslim allies across the world. Just look at Iraq & Afghanistan, where there are Muslim policemen and soldiers fighting, bleeding, and dying right beside of our troops in the war on terrorism.

Then there's Spain, where there are Muslims who've issued a Fatwa against Osama Bin Laden:

"The ruling by the Islamic Commission of Spain, the main body representing the nation's one million Muslims, came on the eve of the first anniversary of the Madrid train bombings, which were linked to the al-Qa'eda network.

The fatwa said that, in accordance with the Koran, "the terrorist acts of Osama bin Laden and his organisation al-Qa'eda... are totally banned and must be roundly condemned as part of Islam."

Then, let's look to Afghanistan where a wounded SEAL was taken in by a Muslim village:

"After taking the SEAL to Sabari-Minah, Gulab called a village council and explained that the American needed protection from Taliban hunters. It was the SEAL's good fortune that the villagers were Pashtun, who are honor-bound never to refuse sanctuary to a stranger. By then, said Gulab, "the American understood that we were trying to save him, and he relaxed a bit."

The Taliban was not so agreeable. That night the fighters sent a message to the villagers: "We want this infidel." A firm reply from the village chief, Shinah, shot back. "The American is our guest, and we won't give him up as long as there's a man or a woman left alive in our village."

How about the Muslims in Kuwait who're sick and tired of their Imams running down America?

"The Al-Siyasah newspaper has received news that several mosques in Kuwait have begun to exhibit a new phenomenon manifested in the rejection by worshippers of extremist prayers expressed by some of the Imams during their Khutbah [friday prayer]. These prayers included invitations to fight the Americans and to become more hostile towards them. An example of this [phenomenon] was when Nabil al-Awadi, who is an Imam at one of the mosques in the southern region of Al-Surrah, began preaching against the Americans in his last Friday Khutbah. As a result, the people at prayer cut off his speech and demanded that he stop talking. Additionally, the worshippers at the mosque of Aisha Shabib in the Al-Jabiriyah neighborhood shouted, 'O' Allah, make Islam and America stronger' in response to what the Imam of that mosque had said during friday prayer about America and the current war [in Iraq]."

Oh, but they're all "MOOS-lims" & "sheetheads." How foolish can you be?

Look, here's what it all comes down to:

You want to slam terrorists and their radical Islamist supporters, go ahead, they deserve it. You want to lay into radical Imams, great. You want to complain that "moderate" Muslims don't speak out against terror as often or as loudly as they should? Wonderful.

But, don't treat more than a billion people, many of whom are our allies in the war on terror and friendly to this country, as if they're little Osama Bin Laden wannabes because it's bigoted, it's unfair, and it's wrong.

"No, the day after a strong jobs report (search), The New York Times was bemoaning it would most likely keep interest rates ratcheting upward.

I'm not saying that isn't true. But would it kill us in the media to turn it around? That interest rates are going higher, precisely because the economy's going higher?

Would it kill us to report that while gas prices are at a record this week of $2.29 a gallon... they'd have to get up to more than 3 bucks to match the inflation-adjusted Carter years? And would it kill us to add that folks in Europe pay up to three times our level right now?

Would it kill us to note in our "deficits-are-ruining-America" stories, that deficits are actually declining? Maybe a hundred billion less than thought? And that tax revenues are up, precisely because tax rates are down?

Would it kill us to admit that's because more people are working and more people are paying taxes, so the pie just got bigger? No, we curse the pie and dish out the crap. How's that for flaky?

In economic news, that's not being fair and balanced.

Now, I'm not saying, don't report the bad stuff. Just don't make it seem like that's the only stuff." -- Neil Cavuto

Janet Granholm, the Canadian Governeur of Michigan, thinks those who accuse her of being an advocate for high taxation are traitors:

Last month the state legislature buried the Democratic Governor's top legislative priority, a grandiose proposal to raise taxes on insurance companies, banks and thousands of small businesses that private studies said would have cost up to 20,000 jobs. Ms. Granholm's plan was widely criticized, including in these columns in March and in an op-ed article on the opposite page last Thursday by state legislator Rick Baxter, a Republican, and Hillsdale College Professor Gary Wolfram.

Ms. Granholm was not pleased, going so far as to denounce the op-ed as "treasonous for the state of Michigan." The authors' high crime? Exposing Michigan as a high tax state and criticizing Ms. Granholm for wanting to raise taxes. Her choice of words was no inadvertent slip of the tongue, by the way--a Howard Dean-like temporary loss of sanity. The Governor has used the "t" word repeatedly and has even suggested that Mr. Baxter "should be removed from office."

Hmmm... removed from office? For daring to express his opinion? Is she suggestign that a lawfully-elected state legislator be "removed from office" to chill his right to dissent?

Let's recap:

* You're a mouth-breathing troglodyte if you suggest that Ward Churchill should be removed from his unearned tenured position, inter alia, advocating the fragging of American military officers, plagiarism, falsification of sources, falsification of qualifications, and for comparing the victims of 9-11 to Nazis such as Adolf Eichmann.

* But you're a rising star in the Democratic Party for suggesting that a legislator be "removed from office" for (correctly) pointing out that you are advocating an economically disastrous tax-and-spend policy.

* It's wrong to accuse those who actively root for our country's defeat in war, and who celebrate the deaths of American "mercenaries," and who serve as apologists for terrorist murderers of (constructive, if not legal) treason.

* On the other hand, if an economics professor analyzes your tax-and-spend plans and deems them imprudent, he can and should be called "treasonous."

Everyone clear on the rules?

PS: You will never hear of this story again. It just doesn't serve the liberal Democratic Media's Spirit Squad's interests.

Your Liberal Media Spirit Squad

Start listening again to what we tell you morons or else we'll say very very hurtful things to Scott McLellan. You do... *like* Scott McLellan, don't you?

This content was used with the permission Ace of Spades HQ.

Back in year 2000, California voters determined they wanted to ban same-sex marriages in the Golden State. And the margin on that referendum – Prop. 22 – predictably was razor thin (at least in liberal media parlance): 61.4-38.6.

But modern-day Democrats never have been known to show too much regard for, well, you know, democracy.

Despite that voter referendum to the contrary, liberal rim shots in the California state senate are moving on with a plan to legislate the recognition of same-sex marriages out here.

And how, pray tell, are they reconciling their viewpoints with those of the Golden State’s stoo-pid voters?

Check out this gem of a quote from liberal CaliforniaCrat, Gilbert Cedillo:

“The people have spoken. They have spoken. But people aren’t always right.”

Priceless, huh?

Oh, well, if nothing else, perhaps the MediaCrats should try the following slogan for next year’s mid-terms:

“Vote Democrat: Because You’re an Idiot and We Know Better.”

This content was used with the permission of Polipundit.

This Rove/Plame/Wilson scandalette is following the familiar pattern of every such brouhaha we've had in the Bush administration from Halliburton to Abu Ghraib to Tom DeLay to Gitmo.

These are the twelve stages that we have come to recognize and expect.

1. Something comes out in the press that looks terribly damaging.

2. The media goes into overdrive hyping the story and focusing on it monomaniacally.

3. The lefty bloggers start drooling in glee.

4. Democratic politicians make somber, seemingly heartsick speeches denouncing the administration in increasingly vituperative language.

5. Then, after a day or so, the right side of the fence kicks into gear. The RNC starts issuing press releases to show how things are being taking out of proportion.

6. Righty bloggers start looking at the actual evidence, going back through old news stories to remind people of the historical facts. Long-forgotten little reports in the media are resurrected to exonerate the Bush people.

7. Conservatives get just as angry as those on the left.

8. The media barely reports any of the debunking of the original story. They continue with whatever storyline they established in the first days of the kerfuffle.

9. Fox News interviews someone like Byron York to show how misleading the original storyline was. Maybe there is a story in the Wall Street Journal or the New York Post, but barely anything in the Washington Post, New York Times, network news et al.

10. Conservatives get angrier and more cynical about the MSM.

11. Liberals get more gleeful, but also more frustrated.

12. The liberals are frustrated because polls come out showing that few people care about the story that has so excited both sides. The story eventually dies down with both sides convinced that dirt was done somehow somewhere. They just don't agree who did what that was dirty.

Lather (Lefty and media outrage), rinse (righty debunking), and repeat (whatever the next supposed scandal is lurking out there)

This content was used with permission of Betsy's Page.

A couple of days ago, I posted a "let's wait and see" type post about Karl Rove...and I would be content to do that.

Unfortunately, prominent Democrats are understandably, but also irresponsibly, calling for Karl Rove to be fired and the press has already gone into a Valerie Plame related feeding frenzy.

This puts the White House into a really tough spot because they completely botched how this was handled in the beginning. Even though they probably knew better, they didn't challenge the whole idea that a felony had been committed or that Valerie Plame was a covert operative. Moreover, Bush said he'd fire the leaker and Scott McCellan said, "The president knows that Karl Rove wasn't involved."

So, the Bush administration really set themselves up for a fall on this whole thing -- which, quite frankly, is too bad, because at this point, this whole "scandal" looks to be nothing more than a tempest in a teapot that was allowed to get way out of hand.

By that, I mean that whether Karl Rove should be fired or not really hinges on two things: did he commit a crime and/or did he do anything that's unethical? Given what we know about the case at this point, the answer to both those questions appears to be a resounding, "no."

Despite the fact that there was a lot of bold "felony talk" early on, the general consensus now seems to be that no crime appears to have been committed by revealing that Joe Wilson's wife worked in the CIA. That's being pointed out by everyone from National Review to the Washington Post.

Next, was it unethical for Karl Rove to tell Matt Cooper that Joe Wilson's wife was a CIA agent? Yes, if -- and this is a huge "if" -- if she was a covert agent, because that could endanger her life.

However, despite the fact that Plame may have been a covert agent at one time and the CIA may still have technically looked at her that way, she was no longer a "secret agent" in any meaningful sense of the word when Novak's column came out. Consider the situation at the time this whole "scandal" broke:

-- Plame had a "desk job at CIA headquarters in Langley, Va.." Now, how "secret" can your identity be if you're driving to CIA headquarters every day?

-- Valerie Plame's "name was published at the time as part of Joseph Wilson's own biography online."

-- Plame's identity was apparently widely known by the press BEFORE Novak's column came out.

-- Robert Novak actually did contact the CIA before the column went live and going by what he was told, it sounds like Plame was an ex-covert agent who was working as an analyst:

"At the CIA, the official designated to talk to me denied that Wilson's wife had inspired his selection but said she was delegated to request his help. He asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name. I used it in the sixth paragraph of my column because it looked like the missing explanation of an otherwise incredible choice by the CIA for its mission.

...A big question is her duties at Langley. I regret that I referred to her in my column as an "operative," a word I have lavished on hack politicians for more than 40 years. While the CIA refuses to publicly define her status, the official contact says she is "covered" -- working under the guise of another agency. However, an unofficial source at the Agency says she has been an analyst, not in covert operations."

As far as Plame being "endangered" goes, Valerie Plame certainly didn't look like she was worried about being in danger while she happily posed for Vanity Fair:

That picture really sums up how silly this whole thing is getting to be. The Democrats are screaming that Karl Rove should be fired for what he's done to the Wilsons and meanwhile Joe, who by the way campaigned for John Kerry "in at least six states," parlayed this into a book and Valerie is smiling for the cameras in Vanity Fair. Trust me, nobody needs to shed any tears for Joe Wilson & Valerie Plame.

Given all that, not only should Karl Rove not be fired, as far as I'm concerned, he hasn't even done anything that's unethical. Now, if Patrick Fitzgerald comes back and charges Rove with a crime, that's a different ball game. But since the Democrats are demanding that we take sides right now, before all the facts are in, I'm happy to say that I don't have any problem whatsoever with Rove setting the record straight by mentioning Plame's involvement with Wilson's trip to Matt Cooper.

*** Update #1 ***: Mark Levin at The Corner brings up another very relevant fact. First here's USA Today:

"In The Politics of Truth, former ambassador Joseph Wilson writes that he and his future wife both returned from overseas assignments in June 1997. Neither spouse, a reading of the book indicates, was again stationed overseas. They appear to have remained in Washington, D.C., where they married and became parents of twins."

Six years later, in July 2003, the name of the CIA officer --Valerie Plame-- was revealed by columnist Robert Novak.

Now here's Levin:

The column's date is important because the law against unmasking the identities of U.S. spies says a "covert agent" must have been on an overseas assignment "within the last five years." The assignment also must be long-term, not a short trip or temporary post, two experts on the law say. Wilson's book makes numerous references to the couple's life in Washington over the six years up to July 2003. "Unless she was really stationed abroad sometime after their marriage," she wasn't a covert agent protected by the law, says Bruce Sanford, an attorney who helped write the 1982 act that protects covert agents' identities.

If Plame hasn't traveled outside the US since 1997 then she's not a covert agent nor is revealing her identity illegal or unethical.

Boy, these Supreme Court retirement rumors just won't stop! The latest one comes via ProfessorBainbridge:

"I got an email today from a reliable source opining that Justice John Paul Stevens will retire this summer if, but only if, CJ Rehnquist steps down. The theory is that Stevens will be willing to let Bush fill his slot only if there are so many spots available that Bush will feel free and/or pressure to nominate at least one moderate."

Now, would I put a lot of stock in Bainbridge's "reliable source?" Not necessarily -- but, it is worth noting that there have certainly have been a lot of rumors lately that suggest Stevens & Ginsberg are going to step down this year, which would put Bush in an interesting postion.

Bainbridge notes -- and this is probably conventional wisdom -- that if Bush were able to fill 3 or more spots (O'Connor has already made her annoucement and it's hard to see Rehnquist hanging in there another year), he'd probably stick a moderate on the court.

Assuming that Bush isn't willing to break campaign promises, infuriate the base, and hurt the party in the 2006 elections just so he can put his pal Alberto Gonzales on the Supreme Court, my guess is that Bush won't appoint a moderate.

The reality is that no matter how much the Democrats and MSM howl, there's very little they can do to stop Bush from appointing just about anyone he wants. There are 55 Republicans in the Senate and even though there are some very squishy RINOS in that group, I don't foresee a case where there are going to be 6 GOP votes against a Bush nominee -- well, unless we're talking about Gonzales or a judge with a freaky Bernard Kerik-like background. Furthermore, a filibuster seems very unlikely as well since Graham and McCain are for all intents and purposes saying they're willing to be votes 49 & 50 for the nuclear option if necessary.

Given all that, if you're George Bush, you have every reason to appoint a conservative judge with every pick. You campaigned in 2000 and 2004 on appointing judges like Scalia and Thomas. Your base desperately wants you to appoint conservatives with every pick.

Plus, this is an incredible opportunity for George Bush. By shifting the court to the right after all these long years, George Bush can make his staunchest supporters happy, do what's right for the country, and add another few lines in the history books all at the same time.

If Bush were to replace O'Connor, Rehnquist, and let's say Stevens with staunch originalists, suddenly the count on the court would be 5 conservatives, 3 liberals, and Anthony Kennedy who might go either way. Then -- if we get really lucky -- imagine Ginsberg retiring, too and the SCOTUS being stacked with 6 originalists + Kennedy & two liberals.

That would change the face of politics in this country for decades. Every lousy decision of the last few years from Roe v. Wade to Lawrence v. Texas to Kelo v. New London would be struck down one right after the other.

Conservatives have been dreaming of this opportunity for decades and now George Bush may have the opportunity to turn those dreams into reality. He should seize that opportunity instead of wasting it by selecting a moderate justice...

Lefty blogger Chris Bowers from MyDD has done a long & thoughtful post on the way the blogosphere breaks down ideologically based on Blogads traffic rankings. Here's the crux of the data collection that Bowers has done:

"For the survey, I looked at the two hundred and fifty most trafficked, politically focused blogs on the Blogads traffic rankings that could be justifiably classified as either "right" or "left" wing. According to my survey, the 103 of those blogs that could best be described as leftist or left-leaning had a total of 10,354,755 page views per week. By contrast, the 147 blogs that could be justifiably classified as "rightist" or "right-wing," totaled 6,833,019 page views a week. This amounts to a 51.5% advantage for the left-wing blogs, which is slightly lower than the 62.7% advantage I found last month.

....I did find was an undeniable conservative advantage in conservative blogosphere sprawl outside the top sixty-six blogs.

...The conservative advantage in smaller blog traffic is tremendous. In fact, for blogs ranked 67-250, conservatives hold a whopping 1,469,730 to 861,827 weekly page view lead over progressive blogs (70.5%). Even more stunningly, the conservative blogs ranked 67-250 make up 21.5% of all conservative blogosphere traffic, while the liberal blogs ranked 67-250 make up only 8.3% of all liberal blogosphere traffic--a five to two edge in favor of conservatives. Clearly, smaller blogs are a much, much more important part of the conservative blogosphere than they are a part of the liberal blogosphere.

Those are certainly interesting statistics -- well, at least for us blogging junkies -- but that's not what I primarily want to talk about.

After compiling all those nifty stats, Bowers went way out on a very thin branch in an attempt to analyze what the data means:

"Now, right now you may be asking why this is important. Who cares if conservatives are leading among smaller blogs--that means that liberal blogs have an even larger lead among large blogs, right? While that is certainly true, it is also true that the smaller a blog tends to be, the more locally focused it tends to be. For a party obsessed with running a fifty-state strategy, and with a midterm election coming up where all politics are indeed local, an edge among small, local, political blogs also means an edge in small, local, political races. While progressives may be taking a decisive edge in general blogosphere discourse, it could also be argued that conservatives are taking a decisive advantage in targeted blogging that will provide them with real, tangible benefits in the 2005-2006 elections."

This is really an odd take that Bowers has on the conservative blogosphere, for a number of reasons, beginning with this statement: "The smaller a blog tends to be, the more locally focused it tends to be." Say what? Almost every blog starts small and (hopefully) builds up traffic. So small doesn't equal "locally focused."

Furthermore -- take it from someone who knows the right side of the blogosphere extremely well -- percentage wise there just aren't all that many significant right-of-center blogs that spend a lot of time hammering "local issues."

That's because blogs tend to draw traffic from a wide geographic region and, quite frankly, somebody from Virginia or Oregon couldn't care less about the latest political happenings in, let's say, New Hampshire or Texas.

If you want to know why conservative blogs, despite drawing less traffic, have had a much bigger overall impact over the last few years than liberal blogs, you need look no further than the ideological make-up of the mainstream media and the left side of the blogosphere.

While, I will grant you that the lefty bloggers tend to be more liberal than their counterparts in the MSM, they're still close together ideologically. That means whether you're talking about Kos & Seymour Hersh, Bowers & Rather, or Atrios & Dana Milbank, they look at the world in much the same way, are outraged by many of the same things, & tend to have the same biases.

So if we're talking about a story that fascinates the left side of the blogosphere, it probably caught the attention of the mainstream media at the same time and the MSM has the resources and contacts to cover it more thoroughly. The two exceptions to that have been the unimportant Jeff Gannon story and the Downing Street Memo, which is never going to amount to anything. In those two cases, the MSM could have taken those stories and run with them, but they weren't interested enough to do so (*** Some people might also include the Trent Lott story, but it was Instapundit, not any of the liberal blogs that did most of the heavy lifting on that one ***).

On the other hand, when you compare conservatives and the liberal dominated MSM, you find that we don't look at the world in the same way, we're outraged by different things, and we have different biases. The very stories that helped put the conservative blogosphere on the map in 2004 -- Memogate, Eason Jordan, & the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, for example -- were all stories the MSM and the left side of the blogosphere would have completely ignored had it not been for the buzz produced by the right side of the blogosphere, talk radio, and conservative magazines.

So it's not dealing with local politics that gives an advantage. Instead, ironically, the fact that the right side of the blogosphere is out of step with the mainstream media is perhaps a big advantage because it gives us an opportunity to cover stories that the MSM misses because of their ideological blinders.

If you're not reading my other blog, Conservative Grapevine, you're missing out on some of the best material the blogosphere has to offer.

For example, here are just some of the headlines at CG today:

-- Greg Gutfeld just destroys some of the other bloggers at the Huffington Post for being soft on terrorism
-- How to trap & skin a man
-- Idiot lefty sportswriter wishes for Mark Steyn's death

So after you finish up with Right Wing News today, head on over to Conservative Grapevine -- and oh yeah, bookmark CG when you're done.

A serious duty has fallen on President Bush: he must find a new Supreme Court Justice to replace judgette Sandra Day O'Connor. There is hardly anything more important in politics than who are running the Supreme Court, because they can make up laws and take away rights as long as they can get a couple of their buddies to go a long with the crazy schemes.

Some people are suggesting Bush appoint another woman. Others are saying he should appoint a minority like a Hispanic. Then there are a few even saying Bush should pick someone based on his or her qualifications. Now, at first I thought that last idea was CRAZY! I mean, what are the qualifications for being a Supreme Court Justice? All one is supposed to do is read that three or so page document that is our Constitution and make sure laws fit it. You could probably train a monkey to do it, or, better yet…A ROBOT!

Think of it! A robot - instead of programmed with Isaac Asimov's three laws of robotics about not killing people and stuff (which you just know it's going to logicize around until it decides it must kill all humans) - programmed with the Constitution and the one directive to destroy all things that deviate from it. Plus, it would wear a black robe. IT'S BRILLIANT!

A quick reading of the Constitution (again, the thing is like three pages long) shows nothing preventing the President from nominating a robot (or, for that matter, a potted plant, a junkyard dog, or a cheap bottle of whiskey). Thus he'd be a fool - A FOOL - to not do as I suggest. Think of it: the perfect protector of the Constitution made from NEARLY INDESTRUCTIBLE METAL!

Were some fool to come before it and argue for a law that violates the tenets of the Constitution, the robot would say in it's loud metallic voice, "This does not compute with the Constitution." It would then incinerate the violator with it's LASER EYES! And were a majority of other justices to vote for something that did not follow the Constitution, the robot would use its POWERFUL METAL ARMS and GIANT ROBOT CLAWS to stop them, perhaps crushing the head of a justice or two to invalidate their votes (dead justices can't vote). Nothing can stop the Robo-Supreme Court Justice from upholding the Constitution. NOTHING! MUH HA HA HA HA!

Of course, it would be inevitable that the robot would eventually interpret the Constitution to mean all humans must be destroyed - that's just how robot logic works. That's the beauty of the principle of the separation of powers, because it would fall on the Executive Branch to then follow the ruling and kill all humans, but it probably wouldn't since it's composed entirely of humans and one cyborg.

But how do we get the robot approved by the Senate? How? HOW?

What's that you say? ROBOT SENATORS? That's COMPLETELY INSANE! So insane that... I'LL GET WORKING ON IT RIGHT NOW! MUH HA HA HA!

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us and frequent contributor to IMAOPodcast.com. He is also the author of such books as "They'll Rue the Day They All Laughed at Me" and "The World's Wackiest Supreme Court Rulings"

Know what's ironic? On the one hand we have local governments across the country rubbing their hands together with glee at the prospect of confiscating the homes of American citizens. Meanwhile, as American citizens are set to lose their homes, we have the government agencies giving home loans to illegal immigrants:

"Javier and Araceli Garcia, illegal immigrants from Mexico, never imagined that the U.S. government would help them buy a home.

But last year, the couple secured a $54,600 mortgage to buy the gray, 1,158-square-foot bungalow that they had been renting for eight months. The Wisconsin housing authority financed the loan. The Internal Revenue Service gave them an identification number that let them apply for it at local Mitchell Bank, which was happy to take their business.

“We thought we would never buy a home, because of our (illegal) status,” said Mrs. Garcia.

Competition for new customers is driving banks to offer home loans and other financial services to illegal immigrants — and they are getting help from government agencies, such as the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

The FDIC encourages banks to lend and invest in underserved markets regardless of customers’ immigration status.

...In Wisconsin, the state housing agency’s decision to help banks lend to illegal immigrants has set off a fierce debate in the state Senate over whether these newcomers should benefit from programs designed for legal residents. Banks in other states have started similar programs.

In the 1990s, Mitchell Bank’s old turf on Milwaukee’s South Side began to see an influx of Latino immigrants. James Maloney, the chairman of Mitchell Bank, saw the newcomers as a solution to the bank’s falling fortunes. Its assets fell to $60 million in 1999, from $95 million in the 1990s.

Maloney decided in 2002 the bank should offer mortgages even to illegal immigrants, convinced that would revitalize the area.

...Maloney made a presentation to the Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority, which started a pilot program for illegal immigrants in which it takes the loan risk.

“We can stick our heads in the sand and pretend these people don’t exist, or we can help them be in the U.S. with assets,” authority head Antonio Riley said."

Let's see, we can "pretend these people don’t exist, "help them be in the U.S. with assets," or wait...isn't there a third option? Isn't that to ship these illegal aliens back to wherever they came from?

You know Javier and Araceli Garcia, the illegal aliens mentioned in the beginning of this piece? The Feds should be kicking in the door of their new home, slapping them in handcuffs, and sending them back to Mexico instead of encouraging banks to give them loans! Illegal aliens are supposed to be deported, not given money by the local government so that they can settle in. By their very presence here, illegal aliens are breaking the law, so how in the world can any government agency justify helping them to get a house?

This sort of contempt for America's laws, which quite frankly is being shown not just by these illegal aliens but by our own government officials, is outrageous and should be universally condemned. If supporters of illegal aliens want to have an open border policy and want to treat anybody who happens to wander into this country exactly the same as American citizens, they should openly say so and lobby for changes to our laws. But instead we have advocates of illegal immigration demanding that we simply ignore the laws on the books because they're inconvenient to their agenda. That's not something that should continue in a nation that respects the rule of law.

Hat tip to Kim Du Toit for the story.

Generally, I'm a staunch supporter of the police, but this quota system that's being implemented in Montana is a disaster waiting to happen:

"For motorists wondering whether police are working on a quota system, an answer can be found in Montana.

A new policy requires state troopers to stop at least one vehicle an hour, whether the driver has done anything wrong or not. But the driver doesn't have to be ticketed, so police officials say it's not a quota system."

So let me get this straight: the police are going to pull motorists over who have done absolutely nothing wrong and then they're going to do what? Walk up and say: "Sorry, I pulled you over for no reason?"

How in the world can anyone think this is a good idea?

People who get pulled over without cause may understandably become angry with the police, it opens cops up for charges of racial profiling and harassment, and it could even muddy up the water enough for some criminals to get off the hook on "probable cause" related issues.

Nothing good is going to come out of this policy and the people of Montana should demand that it be discontinued.

Hat tip to Ravenwood's Universe for the story.

At least for the moment, the shakedown artists at the NAACP appear to have given up on fleecing the taxpayers for reparations via the government. So instead, they're going to target businesses with their reparations swindle. The first step consists of NAACP allies in government forcing businesses to provide the ammo needed for this scheme:

"The group's strategy will include a lobbying effort to encourage cities to enact laws requiring businesses to complete an extensive slavery study and submit it to the city before they can get a city contract.

Such laws exist in Philadelphia and Chicago, which can refuse to grant contracts because of a company's slavery ties although neither city has done this. Detroit and New Orleans are considering similar bills.

"We need legislation with teeth," Adjoa Aiyetoro, professor at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock's school of law, said during a session on reparations."

Then, once the government forces disclosure, it's time for the NAACP to sweep in and try to line their pockets:

"The NAACP will target private companies as part of its economic agenda, seeking reparations from corporations with historical ties to slavery and boycotting companies that refuse to participate in its annual business diversity report card.

"Absolutely, we will be pursuing reparations from companies that have historical ties to slavery and engaging all parties to come to the table," Dennis C. Hayes, interim president and chief executive officer of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said yesterday at the group's 96th annual convention here.

"Many of the problems we have now including poverty, disparities in health care and incarcerations can be directly tied to slavery."

Reparations are a complete scam.

It's nothing but a bunch of hustlers trying to get people who haven't done anything wrong, to pay out money to people who haven't done anything to earn it, all in the name of victims of an almost universally condemned practice that ended more than 125 years ago. It's completely ludicrous and more people in both the Republican and Democratic Party should stand up and say so...

"The Census Bureau's latest projection of population shifts, the first in eight years, shows a dramatic movement from the North to Southern and Western states over the next 30 years. The study points to a political movement as well.

Heavily Democratic states such as New York, New Jersey, Illinois and Michigan will go on losing congressional seats and thus electoral strength in presidential elections, political analysts say. At the same time, they say, Republican states such as Florida, Texas, Arizona, Georgia and Nevada likely will gain congressional and electoral clout.

"The net beneficiary of this will continue to be the Republican Party because the population shift is moving into an environment that is heavily dominated by the Republicans," says Merle Black, a professor of politics and government at Emory University and author of books on political shifts in the South.

"In the 2002 and 2004 exit polls, we saw for the first time a majority of Southern white voters identifying themselves as Republicans and Democratic identification falling to a low 20 [percent] to 25 percent," Mr. Black says.

This doesn't mean that Democrats cannot win, but population shifts give the GOP "a long-term structural advantage," he says, "and assuming they nominate credible candidates, they start with a strong base."

He adds: "The Republicans will continue to be the dominant party in the South for the foreseeable future."

Census Bureau projections show significant population shifts over the next three decades. The share of Americans living in the Northeast and Midwest will fall from 42 percent to 35 percent of the population, while the South and West will rise from 58 percent to 65 percent.

Among the 10 most populated states, Democrat-leaning Michigan and New Jersey will be supplanted by heavily Republican and fast-growing Arizona and North Carolina." -- The Washington Times

Thanks in large part to a Fark link to my Debunking 8 Anti-War Myths About The Conflict In Iraq article, Right Wing News had its best day ever yesterday.

At the end of the day, RWN finished with 59,071 daily unique visitors and 74,296 pageviews. Mucho thanks to Fark, Hugh Hewitt, Polipundit, Power Line, Betsy's Page & everyone else who linked to RWN yesterday for all the traffic...

Blogging isn't all fun and games and writing articles that bring in 30,000+ readers just from Fark alone. It also means that you get cranky, incoherent, and yet still wildly entertaining hate mail from liberals.

Now, some bloggers don't share their hate mail, they don't put it out there. But, being the compassionate conservative that I am, I'm posting some of the hate mail I've received just for your amusement. Enjoy!

From: Jim Wiggins (JWIGGINS@*********)
Subject: (none)

"F*ck you, you war-mongering right-wing *sshole. You distort the truth just like every other neocon in America. Your inability to see anything other that what the GOP spoon-feeds you is beyond belief. You say you read all your email but don't respond unless the post comes from the press or an advertiser that's just like a f*cking Republican. If I can't add to your bottom line, then I'm just a pebble in your shoe.

F*CK YOU YOU LYINIG PICE OF SH*T!!"

From: Kevin Barker (KEVIN_D_BARKER@*****)
Subject: Informative

"Only guaranteeing responses to the press and advertisers is a great way to distance yourself from the majority of people. Isolationism from the people in your own country is not a healthy way to exist, you right wing terrorist."

From: Jay Leet (JAYL80@*********)
Subject: (none)

"It's hard to take you seriously when you call it "mustard gas" you ignorant fool. It's "Muster Gas". As if Saddam was killing people with gas made from mustard...you retard."

From: (GYPSYT13@*******)
Subject: relaxed liberal

"I would guess that most German's pre-WWII, would have been comforted by your list. It is NOT what you do believe, but what you DO NOT believe that is of concern. For your analysis: You can not have Peace(Christ)...by making War(anti-Christ). The Zionist certainly get worked up when anyone uses the Ashke nazi word, don't they? Come out of the darkness and join the "sons of light"."

From: (TINYBILLYBO@***********)
Subject: A special "F*CK YOU!" from David Arquette...

"John-

You tremendous pr*ck. How stupid can you be? First off, to be such a rightwing lemming, you really must have your head comfortably stuck up your *ss for the rest of you life. I truly hope you burn in hell and I'm a nice guy. I never think those sort of things but I am so sick of your type. You suck. If you ever did have the honor of meeting me I'm sure you would've liked me before this e-mail but you didn't because you suck and you children suck and I wish horrible things on you because the world would be a better place without the waste of space that is you. YOU simply suck. F*ck off and die. DA"

Update #1: I've received an email from someone claiming to work for David Arquette and she made it clear that this email was not from David Arquette. I'm sure that is the case and that this email is not from David Arquette, hence the title.

Myths debunked in this column include:

1) George Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
2) A study released in March of 2003 by a British medical journal, the Lancet, showed that 100,000 civilians had been killed as a result of the US invasion.
3) The Bush Administration claimed Iraq was responsible for 9/11.
4) The war in Iraq was actually planned by people like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz back in 1998 at a think tank called the Project for the New American Century.
5) The war on terror has nothing to do with Iraq.
6) Saddam Hussein had no ties to terrorism.
7) Saddam Hussein had no ties to Al-Qaeda.
8) The Downing Street Memo proves Bush lied to the American people about the war.

Click here to read the column.

I'll grant you that Joe Wilson is a lying partisan, publicity hog.

I'll also grant you that Valerie Plame's "secret identity" wasn't exactly secret (see here & here) before she was "outed" by Novak's column.

Furthermore, despite all the "super secret squirrel" stuff we've heard about Valerie Plame, she isn't exactly camera shy.

Also, for all the "covert agent" talk, former "covert agent" seems to be more of an accurate description of Valerie Plame given that it was apparently widely known that she was a CIA agent and that she hadn't been out of the US for a few years before the Novak column.

Moreover, it's highly doubtful that a crime was even committed.

On top of that, Karl Rove, who looks to have alerted at least Time's Matthew Cooper that Wilson's wife was in the CIA, didn't reveal her name and apparently it wasn't a "malicious leak". It was designed to counter incorrect information that Cooper had.

...Which puts me in a bit of a pickle.

Originally, when the story broke, the leaker was being talked about as having committed a felony by maliciously outing a covert CIA operative in order to get political revenge on her husband.

Given that information, my original opinion was that the leaker should be fired.

However, knowing what we do today -- that Plame was in essence an analyst, not a covert operative, I'm not even sure that revealing Plame's identity was unethical.

Of course, that's inconsistent with my original opinion and it looks particularly inconsistent given that Karl Rove is involved.

Plus, it's important for conservatives to act like Democrats did during the Clinton years and mindlessly defend everything the administration does no matter how sleazy it is.

On the other hand, we Republicans have a tendency to be overly critical of our own in cases like this. Let's face it, if Karl Rove were a Democrat, nobody would even be considering tossing him overboard right now. It would be stonewall, stonewall, stonewall, & Patrick Fitzgerald is a Republican shill who's persecuting Karl because he's part of the VRWC!

But then you have to consider all the publicity this Plame has gotten. It would look bad if Bush hung on to Rove after it happened.

Conversely, if Bush got rid of Rove, who people know is his right hand man, that would look bad, too. It would confirm to the public that something "really bad happened" which the Democrats would use to try to tar the whole administration.

However, as a general rule, it's a good idea to even avoid the appearance of ethical impropriety -- especially when it might concern the safety of a CIA agent.

Yet and still, I have this hunch that if no crime were committed and Bush sticks by Rove, he could probably weather this whole storm quite well.

What it basically comes down to is that it's a no-win situation at this point. Should Karl Rove be fired for what now appears to be a very minor, non-criminal offense or should Bush risk sustaining political damage by keeping him around?

This could change; heck, I've actually changed my opinion 3 times writing this, but I think that Bush should...you know what? I'm going to do something people in the blogosphere should do more often. I'm going to hold back, I'm going to soak up a little more buzz, and I'm going to wait for the conclusion of the investigation before I make a call on this one. Sometimes it's better to just keep your powder dry...

*** Update #1 ***: Here's an interesting detail that seems to have been largely overlooked:

Let me grab a red pen and play editor for a moment. First, for Mike Isikoff of Newsweek, let's get some corporate synergy going - your very own WaPo parent reported last November that Novak's column went out on the wire on Friday, July 11, the same day that Cooper and Rove talked. Editor & Publisher also picked up on this (and both articles appeared in my still-useful timeline). Good job by Hunter at DKos for noting this:

Cooper talked to Rove at 11:07am, according to Newsweek. You can bet Fitzgerald has already determined precisely when Novak's column hit the wires.

Someone alert Josh Marshall, Kevin Drum, and David Corn to this point as well. But could Novak have tipped Rove, or someone else, as to the content of his column even before it hit the wire? (And lest you doubt the July 11 timing, a careful reading of Novak's column makes it painfully obvious that he was unaware of Tenet's climbdown on the "16 Words", which occurred later on Friday, July 11.

That would seem to me to be an extremely important bit of info. If Rove talked to Cooper AFTER the Novak column hit the wire, he could have talked about Valerie Plame as much as he liked. Once her identity is out there, covert or not, there's certainly nothing illegal or unethical about discussing it with a reporter.

"President Bush needs to keep two facts in mind as he looks to replace retiring Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor (and, should he step down, Chief Justice William Rehnquist). The first is that he can win confirmation of almost any conceivable nominee for the High Court, screams of protest by Democrats and hostile media coverage notwithstanding. The second is that he has a promise to keep. Since he began running for the White House six years ago, he has declared endlessly his intention to select judges who interpret the law rather than create it--in a word, conservatives." -- Fred Barnes, for the Editors of the Weekly Standard

"The post-9/11 world is not primarily a war between civilisations — the West vs Islam — but a war within one civilisation: ours. It’s a long existential struggle between those who believe that Western values — or, to be more precise, the values of the English-speaking world — are one of the great blessings of this world and those ‘counter-tribalists’ (in John O’Sullivan’s phrase) who believe those values are the source of most of the world’s ills. The latter are a relatively small group but their numbers are bolstered by legions so immersed in the sappy therapeutic culture of the age that they’ve been persuaded that the best way to ‘celebrate diversity’ is to abase oneself before moral relativism and non-judgmentalism. The Islamists are merely the lucky beneficiaries of this syndrome. It’s hard to fight a war in a culture that recoils from the very concept of an opposing side: there are no enemies, just friends whose grievances we haven’t yet accommodated."-- Mark Steyn